| Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption |
| Rob R |
TV chef loses Tesco chicken voteWell, he's done it & they've rejected it when put to the vote Not that we were expecting to, but still, only 10% of the vote:
TV chef loses Tesco chicken vote |
||||||||
| Jamanda |
Still - it was a start - maybe with a longer campaign he can bring it to future meetings and be better prepared.
|
||||||||
| Nick |
Naw, it'll still never, ever work at Tesco, through this route. They sell on price. Battery chickens will always be cheaper, as long as people won't cook properly. | ||||||||
| cab |
And I'm afraid its that simple; the big shareholders know this, they know that Tesco make profits on the back of cheap headline prices like, say, the cheapest chickens. |
||||||||
| Jamanda |
Are there other routes through which it might work? | ||||||||
| tahir |
Agree, although it's definitely worth keeping on at them. |
||||||||
| Rob R |
According to the article Tesco are ready to face down resolutions for better conditions for the people it employs, hardly likely to give a fig about chickens. Funny how they are happy to overprice veg though [no, not funny, just clever marketing, and they've obviously worked out that only affluent people buy fresh veg  ].
|
||||||||
| Nick |
Well, it is working. Just slowly. And, will only ever have a limited success. Free range sales are up 50%, which will mean battery sales have suffered. Get people to cook properly, so they know a good, expensive chicken, will taste better, cook better if not simply battered, and provide more meals when you make stew, curry, soups, stocks etc. Educate people that it's healthier, because nutritionally, older, more active chickens are healthy. It's 'simple', but it takes a generation to do it, and the political will. And Hugh appeals to nice, middle class people and won't ever interest the gang who believe 1.99 is a great deal. It will be done by shoppers changing habits, not suppliers. Tesco will not force shoppers to buy free range, because the shoppers will go to ASDA. |
||||||||
| cab |
Hard sell at higher polical table, I think. You can't pick out one retailer, even the biggest one, and expect the big endowment (and other) companies who hold shares in it to go against their prime responsibility which is to maintain profitability. The head on approach can't work, the right approach is therefore to out flank 'em. Hence the television campaign was worthwhile, and a political campaign is worthwhile; really, you should view this share stunt as a valuable part of that campaign, rather than as a seperate method. |
||||||||
| cab |
Which in my opinion is one of his biggest failings. Fantastic cookery writer, but I've often just turned the telly off when he starts talking down to people from the 'wrong end of town'. |
||||||||
| Brownbear |
You can't educate pork. |
||||||||
| Rob R |
Is that a term for low income families? |
||||||||
| Jamanda |
You can, you know. It's more difficult, but it can be done. |
||||||||
| Nick |
It's deliberate because your sort should be down a pit, not enjoying the trappings of a better life. |
||||||||
| orangepippin |
Note one of the comments on original BBC news page is:
"I would love to pay more for food if it increased the quality of life for these animals but at the moment I can't afford it" And that is the key point, Tescos don't just do what their shareholders tell them, they do what their customers tell them. Normal people are struggling with higher petrol costs, higher energy costs, higher food costs, higher council taxes, higher mortgage costs ... and so on. Unfortunately that means less money for chicken welfare. |
||||||||
| Nick |
Indeed. And until food becomes a priority for most people, rather than just fuel, this will continue to be the case. We've been educated to believe that cheap == good when it comes to our daily bread (or chicken, Pot Noodle or burger). |
||||||||
| Rob R |
All too true, but more money for Tesco... (so they will take notice of the shareholders).
|
||||||||
| cab |
I'm not clear that 'low income families' is a better ter. |
||||||||
| Nick |
Because in some towns, notably those North of the M4, there is no right end of town. |
||||||||
| cab |
Speaking as a well educated person from a deprived council estate in Gatestead, **** your middle class mindset and the false assumption of superiority that goes with it 
(thus demonstrating that you can take the man out of Gateshead, but thankfully a little of Gateshead will always remain in the man). |
||||||||
| cab |
While that may be true, you also get low income families in the 'right' end of town. Anyway, this is a rather fruitless aside; I think that the point I made there about HFWs television persona is less in dispute than the terminology I used. |
||||||||
| cab |
And yes, while thats true... When I couldn't afford it, I didn't eat chicken. Heck, for long spells I've hardly had any meat 'cos I couldn't afford it. I lived and ate better than the person who posted that at the BBC, I'll wager. It isn't about what you can afford, its about the assumption that things like meat must always be cheap and that eating cheap meat is a good thing; there is this view that it is a necessity when, clearly, it is not. And thats the mountain we have to climb. |
||||||||
| orangepippin |
If household budgets are being squeezed then discretionary spending - e.g on an organic free range chicken instead of a cheap intensive one - is no longer possible. That is little to do with education, it is just circumstances. You could equally blame the farmers for being unable to produce organic free range chicken at prices people can afford, thus forcing them to buy the intensive ones. | ||||||||
| Behemoth |
What about not buying any chicken? | ||||||||
| Nick |
Well, your choice is correct as long as the two chickens offer the same in return. However, you get several meals from a decent chicken, and only one from the cheap bird. Education in this respect would help. | ||||||||
| Jamanda |
I'm pretty sure chicken used to be a treat. Only eaten on high days and holidays. What's wrong with that? | ||||||||
| Nick |
'Thanks' to Tesco, McDonalds, and such, we can now have it every day. Life's better, no? |
||||||||
| cab |
So don't eat chicken.
Or I can blame the consumers and the shop; the consumer for making the choice of buying a chicken rather than not buying a chicken, and the shop for selling it, and of course I can carry that blame through to the farmer too. And also to those who don't see through the lie that we need to eat meat all the time. I've lived on a pittance of food spending. Truth be told, much of the time we still do. I simply didn't eat chicken when I couldn't afford to get something I could trust. It isn't hard. |
||||||||
| orangepippin |
OK, so maybe education is a factor then. Let's educate poor people not to eat cheap chicken. |
||||||||
| Rob R |
I wasn't challenging the terminology, it was a genuine question as I didn't know exactly what you meant (though I get the general idea) with the slightly derogatory twist to it. |
||||||||
| Behemoth |
Let's educate poor people not to eat crap cheap chicken. We manage to survive on about 4 chickens a year. |
||||||||
| Helen_A |
Mind you - given the size of the corporate/unittrust/investment vote - 10% is pretty damn good...
Helen_A |
||||||||
| cab |
I was trying to find a way that wasn't derogatory, you see. Not sure there really is one that can't be viewed negatively in some way. |
||||||||
| orangepippin |
Your avatar suggests otherwise. |
||||||||
| Brownbear |
Middle class? How dare you? I'll have you know that I am in fact a Count. |
||||||||
| cab |
Oh, good gracious, no! Lets educate everyone not to eat chicken. Lets shy away as far as we can from targetting our efforts on the 'poor'. I can think of nothing more patronising and likely to turn people off than basing nutritional education on such a demographic model. Personally, I'd have home economics classes in schools teaching all kids about where food comes from, how it is produced, and how to make it go as far as possible with as little waste as possible. And I'd have those facilities offer the same education to parents. There are ways of reaching different parts of the community. |
||||||||
| Stacey |
You're not that bad..... |
||||||||
| orangepippin |
Quite. |
||||||||
| JB |
Not necessarily. Free range chickens only account for a tiny fraction of the market so an increase of 50% in free range will barely have had any impact on factory farming even if that increase does correspond to a reduction in battery farming. If, however, there's been even a tiny increase in chicken sales overall then battery sales could have risen as well. slightly off topic - anyone else here noticed how many people seem to be happy to buy free range eggs but not free range chicken? |
||||||||
| Rob R |
I'll let you into a secret, they can  OK, you'd have to drop the word organic, because that is an expensive label to maintain, however at Christmas I can buy chicken cheaper than the (£2-50 for 1.4kg £1-78/kg). OK it means getting a bigger bird, and that is what Tesco are competing on, not price, but convenience.
|
||||||||
| Rob R |
People from council estates? Trying to think if that is in any way negative.
|
||||||||
| orangepippin |
I had not noticed that. We have almost given up on this free range business because the more you look into it the more it seems that "organic" and "free range" and "welfare" are just meaningless terms. We thought we were buying chicken that had led a reasonably happy life in some kind of open field somewhere ... but the more you read the more it seems that is not the case. I already knew that "organic" was meaningless when it comes to apples, but nievely assumed it meant something when it came to chicken. It is all very confusing. |
||||||||
| cab |
Well, I don't take that as negative, now being an owner occupier on an estate which still has plenty of council houses on it and being from an estate, but you see revulsion on some faces when you say that kind of thing. I'm sad to say that theres a certain part of our population who turn their nose up at such people and places
|
||||||||
| Brownbear |
I just meant thick people. Though I suppose that most thick people are poor, not all poor people are thick. | ||||||||
| Nick |
I assumed it was a typo, too. |
||||||||
| cab |
You say that, but have you seen the attempts in Cambridge at packing the BMW, Mercedes and Jaguar boots with Tarquins precious possessions as daddy has turned up to drive him home from Trinity/Kings/Johns for summer? A more blatant demonstration of lack of intelligence it is hard to gind. |
||||||||
| Brownbear |
Did I say all rich people are intelligent? |
||||||||
| cab |
No, but the statement that most thick people are poor doesn't immediately seem rational if there are a heck of a lot of stupid people with brass. |
||||||||
| Brownbear |
I dare say most comfortably-off people are intelligent. People who are stinking rich have almost always acquired it through inheritance, low feral cunning (Alan Sugar, for example) or untrammelled rapacity (Bill Gates), which all involve more luck than management. |
||||||||
| Rob R |
How about this for an idea?- Tesco could start selling 2.8kg birds & instantly reduce the number of animals by half that have to suffer in these intensive conditions (as well as reducing the unit costs such as killing & processing. 
Oh, no, just before posting I realised the fatal flaw in that plan...
|
||||||||
| Nick |
Two birds (in one) for a fiver? | ||||||||
| Jonnyboy |
The simple fact is that for all his good intentions HFW was never going to force a PLC to change its policy for one that is less profitable. The big shareholders don't want it, and the directors can never go for it. Unless a huge change in consumer behaviour warrants the change. | ||||||||
| orangepippin |
The big shareholders and directors don't want it for a very simple reason - the consumers don't want it. Tesco did not get to where it is now by ignoring consumers.
There is a lot of talk about consumers being "wrong" or needing educating ... but both on the BBC news website and also on the 6pm news yesterday there is a very consistent point coming over, which is that consumers are being squeezed by global recession and high taxes, and discretionary spending on things like "organic" chicken is being cut as a result. I think what HFW has missed is that consumers may agree with him, but they just can't afford to pay more at the moment. It's not education, it's the economy - stupid. |
||||||||
| Brownbear |
Even more money might be saved if they all took to eating out of refuse sacks outside takeaways, but people don't do that, as they have moral or gastronomic objections. The reason people won't pay even another 50p is not that they can't afford it, but because they don't give a toss about chicken welfare or about what they eat. | ||||||||
| orangepippin |
From what I saw on the BBC website yesterday, and the news yesterday evening, it IS because people can't afford it. | ||||||||
| Andy B |
Are some people really so badly off that they cant find an extra £2/3 to buy a better quality bird every now and then? I would find it interesting to see what else is in the shopping basket. | ||||||||
| Brownbear |
No, of course they aren't. A penny is too much for something you don't think is worth it, and many or most people don't think that food animal welfare is worth anything at all. |
||||||||
| Jamanda |
Why do you keep going on about "organic" chicken when the rest of us are discussing animal welfare? What HFW has not missed is that a slowly increasing number of people do agree with him. |
||||||||
| orangepippin |
Much of the recent thread has been taken up with a discussion about whether rich people are intelligent, so not sure what you mean by "the rest of us" discussing animal welfare. Perhaps you have been reading selectively. For most people "organic" chicken is the end result of a production process which puts animal welfare first. An organic Tesco chicken was featured on the BBC news item yesterday about HFW, a programme that many people - but perhaps not you - will have seen. |
||||||||
| orangepippin |
It is not just £2/£3 for a quality bird though is it. It's another few £s for the council tax, another first £s for the gas bill, another few £s for the children's school trip, and so on. You should not assume your priorities - that chicken welfare is important - are the same priorities for everyone else. I agree with the sentiment though. |
||||||||
| Treacodactyl |
Don't you mean it's the extra £s on cigarettes, beer, spirits, DVDs, the latest trainers etc? Sorry if I sound mean and I'm sure there are a few people who genuinely can't afford better welfare meat and who don't eat vast quantities of it, but I tend to find most people could but don't care. |
||||||||
| orangepippin |
I am not sure that "most people could afford it". I do accept that most people could re-evaluate what they spend their reducing disposable income on ... but just because you (and I) believe HFW is right does not mean everyone else thinks chicken welfare is a priority. The leader in the Times today in relation to the HFW issue is quite well balanced, but is entitled "shoppers vote with their wallets". That is consistent with most of the other coverage over the last few days - supportive, but people can't afford it.
I think HFW will win in the long-run, and people will see buying low-welfare meat as socially unacceptable, in the same way that drink-driving now is. But it will take time - and more disposable income than most people currently have. |
||||||||
| Treacodactyl |
To put it another way then, everyone I know who buys the cheapest chicken can afford to buy better. |
||||||||
| Jonnyboy |
It's normally about this time in a these debates, that someone who genuinely can't afford 'it' speaks up and puts us firmly in our place. And rightly so.
Just because we don't know people in these situations, it is easy to dismiss them. |
||||||||
| Treacodactyl |
Which is why I said I am sure there are some people who can't. I also expect there are some people who are very hard up but they don't eat factory farmed meat, it would be good to hear from them as well. |
||||||||
| orangepippin |
That is in your opinion though. You think they should pay a bit more and buy a higher-welfare chicken. They clearly disagree with you, and think there are more important things to spend their diminishing disposable income on. Let's not forget this is against a backdrop of inflation running at between (depending on who you believe) 3% - 9%. People's choices are therefore being constrained one way or another. Sales of luxury or discretionary items will fall. Many retailers are now promoting "value". That's because they know that their customers have less to spend. HFW has lost the first battle, but he may yet win the war. He has certainly raised awareness about chicken welfare, and that must surely be a start. |
||||||||
| Rob R |
You already have done. The difference is that I can get them for free & I still don't want to eat them. We rarely eat chicken.
As I said earlier & OP has ignored, supermarkets do not compete primarily on price, they compete on convenience which is exactly what a 1.4kg chicken is- just the right size to pick off some of the meat & fat and then throw the carcass in the bin. As well as raising the bar for animal welfare HFW is also showing people how to get more out of a single chicken. If such people are genuinely hard up they will take this on board & buy the special offer chickens once a week instead of twice, it will still be intensive chicken but there will be fewer animals being abused to feed the same number of people and that, for me, will be a positive result and may make people think about taking the next step & buying a healthier chicken too. |
||||||||
| orangepippin |
I didn't ignore it, but did not understand it. From your further explanation above I sort of get the point now. I still think they compete on price though, but convenience is also important yes. You are however assuming that people who are hard-up have the time to do all this preparation. Ever heard of being "time-poor"? |
||||||||
| Rob R |
Sorry I really don't understand that point- getting more meals out of a single bird is not going to be any more time consuming than toddling off down the supermarket for another one.  The closer the supermarket is, the better the advantage of throw away meals though- that's putting the advantage of proximity over price, which is why they are constantly trying to build supermarkets on every corner of town.
And yes I've heard of being time poor- I've shopped in supermarkets at 2am because the rest of the day was spent working (24 hour opening is a wonderful thing to single working people). |
||||||||
| Treacodactyl |
If asked they tend to agree that they shouldn't buy factory farmed stuff, but then they still do. If things are so bad perhaps we should remove all animal welfare legislation and let people chose whatever they want? Personally I think poultry welfare should be brought more into line with other animals and can only see legislation as a way of doing it. |
||||||||
| Chez |
It's the 'out of sight out of mind' thing, isn't it? People just don't *want* to think about the conditions their chicken has been kept in, because they are squeamish about it. In the same way that some people buy designer trainers and don't want to think about the means of production.
If you don't think about it, it's easy to say 'well, I can't afford a higher priced / more ethically produced one' and spend the money on something else. I think we have trouble drawing the line between 'essentials' and 'desirables' - and we have become a throw-away society, whether that's a chicken carcass or a pair of shoes that could be repaired. We expect to be able to afford things that fifty or a hundred years ago would have been deemed luxuries. Regular meat and dairy product eating is one of those, as is more than one pair of shoes. Our grandparents and great-grandparents (or in my case, parents - my father caught crows do eat during the depression in the '30's) had different expectations. If we can't afford meat or local cheese, we don't buy it. I won't buy supermarket meat; but I'm lucky that I can get locally produced pork from Mochyn, lamb from my Ma and do our own chickens. Our weekly food budget is about twenty five quid at the moment and we're struggling; I am sure that there are a lot of other people out there who are on less. When I say 'weekly', I mean as an average. Out of that comes our homebrew budget, bulk-buying flour and soap-making bits. The only other non-food items we buy are deodorant, tooth-paste and washing up liquid. Baby-food has been a problem; but we are getting to grips with the 'freeze your own' routine, now. If I couldn't afford good meat and dairy, I wouldn't eat it. But everyone is different. |
||||||||
| Rob R |
Hit the nail on the head there Chez. |
||||||||
| Andy B |
The only problem here is that we have just had a period of high economic growth with a lot of people with higher disposable income, we are now going the other way but people were still buying the cheapest option when times were good. Bad timing if your Hugh, a chicken or people who care, or can afford to care. |
||||||||
| boisdevie1 |
Whether times are good or hard over the last 50 years the average family has spend a lower and lower percentage of their income on food. So food quality and animal husbandry standards aren't an issue for them. They plead poverty but they simply have other priorities but aren't prepared to simply tell the truth - that they don't care. | ||||||||
| Stacey |
I think lots of people are feeling the pinch and are also fairly scared about the future ( I know I am) However, I grew up in a low income family and we simply didn't eat what we couldn't afford. Chicken was a luxury and I don't remember eating much of it till we moved from Scotland to Cornwall in the mid 70's. Maybe it was round about that time that it started to become cheaper but until then it had been out of our price range. We had a joint of silverside on a Sunday and that lasted us until Tuesday, I think we used to have Mince and tatties on night and then stovies the next (leftover mince and tatties mixed together with a bit more gravy and eaten with oatcakes) and we always had fried herring on Friday nights, eaten with bread and butter to catch the bones in your throat  There was probably a staggering lack of veg in my diet but that was scotland in the 70's for ya
When did we start to assume that cheap food is a right? If people can't afford properly reared chicken then it's tough tits, IMO. I can't afford loads of things so I don't buy them. It's perfectly possible to eat healthily on a low budget, more healthily probably than with a higher budget. People need to get a bleddy grip and stop being so slefish and self pitying when it comes to food. There endeth The Rant  
|
||||||||
| orangepippin |
As quoted on the BBC article which kicked off this thread: "I would love to pay more for food if it increased the quality of life for these animals but at the moment I can't afford it" There are bound to be people who don't care, but recognise that there are also many who do care - but have other priorities. There seems to be a view on here that we have the right to tell other people what they can and cannot afford, and what their spending priorities should be. That is a dangerous path, even for as good a cause as animal welfare. |
||||||||
| Grimnir |
I buy what I can cook within my budget. I cook all the meals in my house. My meal choices are based on a few criteria - will the kids eat it, can I afford it, do I know how to cook it, how far do I have to carry it - these are the main ones. Lets look at them more closely
Will the kids eat it? I did not bring these kids up from babies. Mum used to feed convenience foods because she couldn't cook. Part of this was due to lack of skill in the kitchen, part was down to her medical condition. The meals have changed a great deal since I moved in but I have had 3 years of wasted food - I would rather feed something they will eat that feed it to the dogs over and over. Can I afford it? Most often, no. There probably are things I could cut back on but also there are only so many meals I know how to prepare so these are the meals I buy for. Yes I could cut back on other stuff, indeed it was one of the reasons I gave up smoking, but I am limited by the range in the shop I use as well. Can I cook it? Well, I am quite good at some meals but I am certainly not a chef. I can roast a chicken but why? I don't get more than 1 meal and maybe a few sarnies out of it. I wouldn't know what to do with the carcass! I have limited storage space or I'd get a HMM box, but without another freezer it would be pointless and I'd probably need to learn a few different meals if I did (which is not a bad thing I guess). How far do I have to carry it? Well, I don't have a car and I've broken 2 shopping trolleys so far coming back with a weeks shopping. The one place in town that will deliver for free is Iceland so I do most of my shopping there. Anywhere else I have to carry back from and only Asda is close enough to get the bus from - have you ever shopped in Asda? So you tell me - with my council-estate bred skills and low-income lifestyle, what can I do better? |
||||||||
| Stacey |
So learn
|
||||||||
| Stacey |
Why do they have to buy chicken? Why not find a cheaper alternative? |
||||||||
| orangepippin |
Thanks for this - a much-needed reality check. |
||||||||
| Stacey |
No, it's not. I'm on an incredibly low income - trying to feed a family of anywhere up to five on £30 a week. I don't use it as an excuse to buy shitty chicken. Thsi issue really gets me angry - instead of learning and educating themselves (there's no shortage of cookery books available or recipes on the net etc) they choose to wring their hands and say 'Oh, poor me'. It's a load of old bollocks. It is absolutely no excuse for buying into such deadful living conditions for a fellow, living creature. |
||||||||
| boisdevie1 |
I'm with you Stacey. People just love to find excuses. | ||||||||
| orangepippin |
Whilst agreeing personally with the importance of what HFW is trying to do, suggesting that other people's reality is just an "excuse" for not doing something that *you* happen to think is important is at best going to be counter-productive and at worst patronising IMHO. | ||||||||
| Rob R |
I have to agree Stacey. A reality check would be for me to describe just what it is like in a modern, state of the art confinement house. Also to point out that stopping eating chicken, or eating it less often will not kill you. I could be said to be lucky to know about food (not that much luck comes into it) and I often have it put to me that even on a low income, as a meat producer, I am immune from the cost of eating good quality meat- as if I magically don't have to pay for it.
|
||||||||
| Stacey |
It's also convenient that my 'reality' is ignored
People would be prosecuted for keeping a cat in the same conditions as a battery hen - it's not rocket science is it? |
||||||||
| Stacey |
I suffer from that as well. People assume that the meat is somehow free In actual fact it's quite often (being such small producers) that we pay more for it than we would off the shelves of a supermarket.
|
||||||||
| Jamanda |
Have you seen this? Chicken article. I'm with Stacey. If you care about animal welfare you won't buy the cruelly produced ones. If you don't you might buy them, and will find ways to justify it if you think about it at all. |
||||||||
| boisdevie1 |
Nobody is forced to buy a chicken that is raised in cruel conditions. Regardless of income. | ||||||||
| orangepippin |
I don't think it has been. As you would expect on DS, your view is the majority view. However we don't change other people's views by pretending ours is the only truth.
Good point.
So you say, but clearly a lot of people don't agree because that is what happens and cost seems to be a factor. However I think HFWs' campaign will ultimately be successful just because he is asking the questions and getting things out in the open and raising awareness. |
||||||||
| lottie |
I don't understand the arguments about being able to get several meals from a free range chicken as opposed to a battery one.Not all battery chickens are small and I could make curry,stirfry,soup etc out of remains whichever bird I had----the only difference is with the battery chicken I would get more meals for less money. I like others on here may think they taste better but that's a subjective judgement--when Hugh put it to the test there was no real winner. I don't buy battery chicken[ I eat my own anyway] but I can understand why someone on a low budget does their best to stretch it as best they can----which many people in that position are incredibly skilful at. They are just making a moral and lifestyle choice I don't happen to agree with---but so do alot of people. | ||||||||
| Andy B |
There will always be people who just dont care on any number of issues, the problem is that people high up in the Tesco's organisation either dont care or hide behind other peoples lack of finances. The quality of life of an animal is a moral decision, one which Tescos could have turned to their advantage by backing and supporting, instead, for a company that makes the ammount of profit that it does, it has chosen a rather short sighted and morally corrupt view of the issue. | ||||||||
| Rob R |
You're right, and on the whole the ds contributors don't do that. Many of us go out of our way to delve further into the facts and help educate with the hows & whys (in some cases with first hand experience of being in a similar situation). To be patronising would be [for a higher income person] to say "You shouldn't eat cheap chicken" and leave it at that. |
||||||||
| orangepippin |
Thankfully it is HFW and not you that is running this campaign. Statements like this will simply get people's backs up. That might make you feel better - but it won't help to improve chicken welfare. |
||||||||
| orangepippin |
Or "let them eat cake"! |
||||||||
| Chez |
It's a true statement though. Either one has principles and sticks to them regardless, or one doesn't. |
||||||||
| Rob R |
There's two points in it really; 1) As you point out, you can get more meals from an intensive bird too, so by doing this you reduce the number of birds you buy, even if you don't change the type (a positive in my book, at least) and secondly; 2) The ratio of protein to fat in a well reared bird will be higher than an intensive one, so nutritionally you can get more meals out of it. |
||||||||
| orangepippin |
I agree with that. But it doesn't actually help, in the way that HFW's campaign is helping. And just because you have principles does not make your principles right - other people's principles can be valid too. Even if they are not yours. |
||||||||
| Rob R |
You're going to have to point that one out to me, please, I don't understand. |
||||||||
| orangepippin |
Queen Marie Antoinette, at the start of the French Revolution, on being told the peasants were revolting because they could not afford the price of bread. | ||||||||
| Rob R |
Maybe because HFW's campaign is just that, a complete campaign, whereas Jamanda's statement you quoted was a single statement picked out of context from the rest of the information in the post? Edit: Thanks. I didn't realise Queen Marie Antoinette was a member of DS
|